5.  The applicant was born in 1975 and lives in Chelyabinsk.
6.  On 23 June 2005 the applicant, a nurse at a private dentist’s office at the time, attended a small party with her colleagues to celebrate the approval of an application for a dental practice licence. Then four of them, including the applicant, went to a lake, where they continued to celebrate. They left the lake late in the evening. According to the applicant, on her way home she was stopped by a group of men, who threatened her with a knife and beat her. She was raped and forced to engage in other sexual activities. Thereafter she was taken to a flat, where she was let in by a teenage girl, fourteen or fifteen years old. A man of forty or fifty years of age made her stay in the flat and allowed her to leave only in the morning. When she got home, she discovered that certain clothing was missing. Her jewellery, including a gold chain and a pendant, had also disappeared. Her jeans and T-shirt were covered with dirt, grass and blood. She had bruises and contusions on her body.
7.  On 24 June 2005 the applicant complained to the prosecutor’s office that she had been raped and robbed. She could not recall the events of the previous night in detail. First she alleged that she had been raped by Sh., the man who had taken her to the flat. Then she submitted that it was the group of men she had met near her place of residence who had raped her.
8.  The applicant remembered the nicknames the men had used to address each other. She also reported the first name of the girl who had let her into the flat. She could not remember the flat number or its floor. Nor could she provide a detailed description of the flat’s interior.
9.  On the same day she was examined by a forensic expert, who noted the presence of bruises and contusions on her body, but no injuries in the area of the genitals or the anus. She also had a smear test, which did not detect the presence of spermatozoids.
10.  Investigator B. questioned the applicant and her colleagues who had participated in the party. K., another nurse, submitted that the applicant had been drunk and had fallen down several times on the way back from the lake. She doubted that the applicant had been raped, and suggested that the latter had concocted the story for her husband.
11.  The investigator also questioned Sh. who denied all the allegations.
12.  On 3 July 2005 investigator B. dismissed the applicant’s complaint. He found her allegations unsubstantiated, noting that on the night in question she had been drunk and had fallen down several times. He further concluded that her story was vague and contradictory and was an attempt to exonerate herself to her husband.
13.  On 20 July 2005 the Chelyabinsk Leninskiy District prosecutor quashed the decision of 3 July 2005. The prosecutor noted that the inquiry in response to the applicant’s complaint had been incomplete. He indicated that the investigator should question further (1) the applicant, to remove the contradictions in her account of the events, (2) her colleagues, and (3) the teenage girl from the flat. The investigator was also to establish the identity of the men whom the applicant accused of having raped her.
14.  On 27 July 2005 investigator B. dismissed the applicant’s complaint as unsubstantiated. From the text of his decision, it is not clear whether he had conducted new examinations of the applicant and her colleagues, whom he had questioned earlier. He had also interviewed the applicant’s husband and some other colleagues of hers, who had provided positive references as to the applicant’s character. With reference to the medical report, B. noted that there were several bruises and contusions on the applicant’s body, but no injuries in the area of the genitals or the anus. He concluded as follows:
“Regard being had to [the evidence stated above], the additional inquiry conducted in response to the [applicant’s] complaint has not led to the discovery of the objective data showing that on the night from 23 to 24 June 2005 [the applicant] was raped. [The applicant] was in an inebriated state of strong intensity, she fell down several times. Nor can she provide a detailed account of the events. She makes contradictory submissions that might suggest that she concocted her story in an attempt to exonerate herself to her husband.”
15.  On 24 August 2005 the Chelyabinsk Leninskiy District deputy prosecutor quashed the decision of 27 July 2005 and remitted the matter for further inquiry. The prosecutor noted that the investigator had failed to question the applicant further to elucidate the inconsistencies in her submissions, and had done nothing to identify and question the individuals whose nicknames the applicant had reported.
16.  On 12 September 2005 investigator P. dismissed the applicant’s allegation of rape for the same reasons as before. According to his findings, when questioned again the applicant said that she had come with Sh. to the flat of her own will, had stayed there for some time and had then left. Referring to the inconsistencies in the applicant’s account of the events, the investigator found her submissions unreliable. In particular, he noted as follows:
“Regard being had to [the evidence stated above], the additional inquiry conducted in response to the [applicant’s] complaint has not led to the discovery of the objective data showing that on the night from 23 to 24 June 2005 a crime [alleged by the applicant] was committed. All the explanations provided by [the applicant] are not only contradictory, they are not logical or consistent. [The applicant] cannot answer any specific question. Her submissions contradict each other, they also contradict her husband’s statements. For example, she told her husband that Sh. had made death threats to her and that he had admitted to having robbed their flat. When questioned in the prosecutor’s office, she said that Sh. had denied his participation [in the robbery]. Furthermore, it was established that if [the applicant] had spent the night in someone’s flat, it was not Sh.’s flat. He had seven cats and six dogs living with him and it was impossible to miss them. Nevertheless, the applicant did not notice them.”
17.  On 6 October 2005 the Chelyabinsk Region deputy prosecutor quashed the decision of 12 September 2005 and ordered a further inquiry into the applicant’s complaint. The deputy prosecutor indicated a number of specific actions to be taken by the investigator. In particular, the identity of the teenage girl the applicant had referred to was to be established; the applicant’s colleagues were to be questioned as to the allegations that the applicant had fallen down; the clothes the applicant had been wearing on the day in question were to be admitted into evidence and subjected to examination; and the men the applicant accused of raping her were to be identified.
18.  On 20 October 2005 investigator K. refused to open a criminal investigation in connection with the applicant’s allegations, and dismissed them as unsubstantiated concluding as follows:
“Regard being had to [the evidence stated above], the additional inquiry conducted in response to the [applicant’s] complaint has not led to the discovery of the objective data showing that on the night from 23 to 24 June 2005 a crime [alleged by the applicant] was committed. All the explanations provided by [the applicant] are not only contradictory, they are not logical or consistent. [The applicant] cannot answer any specific question. Her submissions contradict the statements made by other persons including her husband. Furthermore, at the beginning [the applicant] alleged that Sh. had raped her. Then she claimed that she had been raped by ten men at the entrance [to a block of flats]. Furthermore, she told her husband that Sh. had made death threats to her and that he had admitted to having robbed their flat. When questioned in the prosecutor’s office, she said that Sh. had denied his participation [in the robbery]. Furthermore, it was established that if [the applicant] had spent the night in someone’s flat, it was not Sh.’s flat. He had seven cats and six dogs living with him and it was impossible to miss them. Nevertheless, the applicant said that she had not noticed the animals. Accordingly, the applicant’s allegations do not correspond to the facts and cannot be viewed as credible.”
19.  On 25 November 2005 the first deputy prosecutor of the Chelyabinsk Region quashed the decision of 20 October 2005, noting that objective data confirming the applicant’s allegations existed, and opened an official criminal investigation in connection with the events of 23 June 2005.
20.  In November and December 2005 the investigator questioned the applicant, her husband and her former colleagues again. The investigator further obtained the clothes she was wearing at the time of the alleged assault and commissioned a forensic examination.
21.  On 22 December 2005 the investigator inspected the alleged rape scene to verify the applicant’s allegations. The applicant was also present and gave explanations.
22.  On 26 December 2005 expert Zar. conducted a forensic biological examination of the applicant’s clothes. The expert detected blood and sperm stains on the applicant’s jeans and T-shirt.
23.  On 25 January 2006 the investigator joined the investigation of the robbery and the rape.
24.  On 19 February 2006 expert Zar. conducted an additional biological examination of the applicant’s clothes. She concluded that the blood found on them could have been that of the applicant. The report remained silent as to the preservation or destruction of the DNA evidence or the possibility of its analysis.
25.  In February 2006 the investigator questioned Sh., his girlfriend, his niece, and R. and P., who were allegedly present at the crime scene at the relevant time. He organised a confrontation between the applicant and Sh.
26.  In March 2006 the investigator questioned Shk., who was also present at the crime scene at the relevant time. The investigator asked the applicant to identify P., R. and Sh. from photographs, which she failed to do. When questioned by the investigator, the applicant’s brother-in-law claimed that he had heard that two brothers M. had committed the rape.
27.  On 5 April 2006 the investigator questioned Aleksandr M., one of the brothers who had allegedly been involved in the rape. He denied all the allegations. According to the examination record, the investigator did not question the said witness as to his or his brother’s whereabouts on 23‑24 June 2005.
28.  On 12 May 2006 forensic expert Zap. analysed the applicant’s clothes. She detected blood and spermatozoids on them. In her opinion, it was possible to use the biological material collected for further genetic examination in order to determine whose sperm it was.
29.  On 25 May 2006 investigator G. suspended the criminal investigation, noting as follows:
“Whereas the time-limit established for the preliminary investigation in this case expires on 25 May 2006 and all the investigative activities that could be carried out for establishing the accused have been completed and in compliance with Article 208 § 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure [impossibility to identify the offenders].
I hereby decide
(1)  To suspend the criminal investigation ... .”
30.  On 9 June 2006 the first deputy regional prosecutor quashed the decision of 25 May 2006 and ordered further investigation. In particular, he noted as follows:
“The examination of the materials of the case-file shows that [the investigating authorities] have failed to carry out all the investigative activities for establishing the perpetrators.
In particular, when questioned, [the applicant] submitted that the alleged perpetrators had addressed each other by nicknames and names ... . However, no measures have been taken to identify and search for those persons. Furthermore, no action has been taken to identify a person named Dmitry, whom the applicant mentioned during the interview on 15 December 2005 and who might know some of the alleged perpetrators.
[The applicant] also submitted that after the rape an unknown man took her to a flat nearby where he held her until 6 a.m. of the following morning. It was a girl named either Katya or Nastya who opened the door to the flat and subsequently let [the applicant] out. However, these circumstances have not been duly verified. The applicant has not been questioned as to the age of the girl. No action to identify the girl and question her has been taken.
...
... during repeated interviews [the applicant] made confused and inconsistent statements which fact suggests that it is necessary to subject her to polygraph testing.
On several occasions [the applicant] was asked to identify certain persons by photographs. Twice she identified S. According to the investigators, however, he has no connection to the case. However, S. has never been questioned. Nor has there been a confrontation organised between him and the applicant. His possible involvement in the case has not been assessed from the legal standpoint.
According to [the applicant’s husband], during the night [of the events in question] there was a group of young men seen in the yard of the block of flats who participated in the graduates’ party of school no. 55. However, the investigators have failed to verify the information about the graduates’ party..., to identify the graduates and to perform any action in this regard.
Lastly, the investigators have failed to comply with certain rules of criminal procedure. In particular, on 10 May 2006 they commissioned an additional biological forensic examination. The expert’s report has not been included in the case-file. The applicant has not been apprised of the expert’s findings ...”
31.  In July 2006 the investigator questioned a number of individuals (approximately thirty-five) who lived in a block of flats near the alleged crime scene. None of them had witnessed or heard anything during the night of 23-24 June 2005. Nor had they heard that a woman had been raped in the neighbourhood.
32.  On 28 September 2006 R. was subjected to polygraph testing. He denied any involvement in the rape. The expert concluded that R. had “guilty knowledge” with regard to the applicant’s rape and did not make truthful submissions on the matter.
33.  On 15 October 2006 investigator B. dismissed the applicant’s request for genetic examination noting as follows:
“The ... investigating authorities discern no grounds to grant the [applicant’s] request. The sporadic spermatozoids discovered on the applicant’s clothes have been destroyed in the course of the forensic testing. Therefore, it is impossible to conduct genetic examination.”
34.  On 1 November 2006 the case concerning the applicant’s rape was disjoined from the case of robbery.
35.  On 16 November 2006 the investigation was suspended. In particular, the investigator noted as follows:
“On 16 November 2006 the 11 months’ time-limit established for the preliminary investigation in this case expires. All the investigative activities that could be carried out in order to establish the persons who have taken [the applicant’s] purse and money and raped her have been completed. The possible theories have been verified.
Having regard to the above and in compliance with Article 208 § 1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure [impossibility to identify the offenders].
I hereby decide
(1)  To suspend the criminal investigation ... .”
36.  The applicant appealed against the decision of 16 November 2006 alleging that the investigators had failed to take all possible measures to identify the alleged perpetrators.
37.  On 8 November 2007 the Chelyabinsk Leninskiy District Court allowed the applicant’s complaint and quashed the decision of 16 November 2006. The court noted as follows:
“According to the case-file materials, the acting head of the division for supervision of criminal investigation ... asked in writing that the persons indicated by [the applicant] in her complaint should undergo a polygraph test. Accordingly, the investigator was to subject R., P., Sh., Shk., [brothers] M., and K. to polygraph testing ... .
The investigator questioned only R. It was planned to subject the other persons to polygraph testing ... . However, for reasons unknown, these investigative activities have not been performed.
Having regard to the above, the court considers that the investigator has failed to conduct all the investigating activities that could have been performed pending the establishment of an accused or a suspect and that his decision to suspend the investigation is unjustified.”
38.  On 17 January 2008 the Chelyabinsk Regional Court quashed the decision of 8 November 2007 on appeal and remitted the matter for fresh consideration. The court noted as follows:
“The [District] Court’s conclusion [concerning the polygraph testing] is erroneous. The questioning with the use of polygraph is not provided for in the rules of criminal procedure and cannot be used as evidence in the criminal case. Furthermore, as it follows from the materials in the case-file, the prosecutor’s request [to conduct polygraph testing] was contained in his letter which is not a procedural document and his request ... is merely a recommendation.
In such circumstances, the [District] Court’s decision cannot be found lawful and justified. It is to be quashed and the matter is to be returned for fresh consideration.”
39.  On 12 February 2008 the Chelyabinsk Leninskiy District Court dismissed the applicant’s complaint and upheld the validity of the investigator’s decision to suspend the investigation. The court reiterated verbatim the reasoning contained in the appeal court’s decision of 17 January 2008.
40.  On 5 May 2008 the Chelyabinsk Regional Court upheld the said decision on appeal.
41.  On an unspecified date the applicant brought a civil claim for damages against the authorities’ failure to conduct an effective investigation into her complaint.
42.  On 19 April 2006 the Chelyabinsk Tsentralniy District Court allowed the applicant’s claim in part and awarded her 5,000 Russian roubles (RUB) in damages. The court noted that for five months the investigators regularly dismissed her complaint about the rape while failing to conduct a full inquiry into her allegations. The court found that such a delay infringed the applicant’s right of access to court within a reasonable time.
43.  On 30 May 2006 the Chelyabinsk Regional Court upheld the judgment of 19 April 2006 on appeal.
44.  On 4 October 2006 the Presidium of the Chelyabinsk Regional Court quashed the judgments of 19 April and 30 May 2006 by way of supervisory review, and remitted the matter for fresh consideration.
45.  On 25 October 2006 the District Court dismissed the applicant’s claims in full. The court held that the applicant’s allegations of wilful delays in the inquiry were not substantiated.
46.  On 19 December 2006 the Chelyabinsk Regional Court upheld the judgment of 25 October 2006 on appeal.
47.  On 31 October 2006 Sh. was charged with robbery in respect of the applicant.
48.  During the trial Sh. pleaded guilty. The court questioned the applicant and witness P., the teenage girl the applicant had met on the night of the assault. P.’s testimony was summarised in the verdict as follows:
“During the night of 24 May 2005 someone knocked on the door. She opened the door and saw Sh., her father’s acquaintance, and [the applicant], whom she had not met before. Both of them were in a state of alcoholic intoxication. She let them into the flat. [The applicant] was upset, she was in tears. She was wearing jeans which were inside out. She suggested that she and [the applicant] go into the bathroom to have a smoke, to talk and to get changed. When [the applicant] took off her jeans she saw that [the applicant] had no pants on. She realised that [the applicant] could have been raped. After that [the applicant] and Sh. came into the kitchen to drink vodka. Her father drank with them. She did not hear what they were talking about. But she went into the kitchen to calm [the applicant] down when the latter was crying. [The applicant] left about five a.m. For some reason, Sh. was holding her gold chain on a pendant in his hand. ... [The applicant] asked him to give it back to her, but Sh. refused to do so. Then [the applicant] asked her to open the door, which she did. [The applicant] left. Sh. left some thirty minutes later.”
49.  On 14 December 2006 the Chelyabinsk Leninskiy District Court found Sh. guilty as charged and sentenced him conditionally to eighteen months’ imprisonment.